0
Which of the following statement about interpreting historical evidence is true?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
New sources and ideas may change the interpreting of events
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the difference between a fact and a statement?
The difference between fact and statement is that a fact is something that is empirically true and can be supported by evidence while a statement is a belief that may or may not be backed up with some type of evidence.
Why is it important to test your hypothesis and collect evidence?
A hypothesis is a testable statement. To check the accuracy of your statement, you need to design an experiment to test it and collect data. Then you analyze your data to see how well it supported your hypothesis.
When you interpret what you have observed you are inferring true or false?
When interpreting what you have observed, you are making an inference based on the available evidence. This inference can be either true or false depending on the accuracy of the observations and the validity of the reasoning used to make the interpretation.
Social inequality was both accepted and resisted in classical civilizations. What evidence might support this statement?
It was mainly on inequalities of both male and female.
Is there evidence outside the Bible that proves Matthew was a historical person?
In the early first century, Matthew was never mentioned by anyone outside the gospels, and the gospel that bears his name was written anonymously and only attributed to Matthew later in the second century. So, the existence of the gospel is not evidence for the historicity of Matthew and there is no other extra-biblical evidence for him.
What statement about historical claims is correct?
A good claim is supported by many pieces of reliable evidence.
Is there evidence from a recent flood?
If the Flood of Noah's day was a real historical event and was worldwide we would expect to find some or all of the following evidence on the earth: Lots of ...
How can new evidence change historical interpreting?
If new evidence comes to light then it will change an historians view on it, if they write for example that John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln and they stick by that view, and then they find new evidence that George from booth number 5 did it then of course the interpretation of that event will change and so will everybody's views on it
Are there alternative ways of interpreting the evidence psych assignment study 1?
no
Do Fallacies rely on incorrect conclusions drawn from interpreting evidence?
Fallacies do often involve incorrect conclusions, but they can also stem from flawed reasoning or misuse of evidence. Fallacies are errors in logic that can undermine the validity of an argument, leading to misleading or unsound conclusions.
The response of each society to European imperialism grew out of its larger historical development and its internal problems What evidence might support this statement?
p e n i s
Which is necessary to validate a claim about an event in history?
Corroborated sources of historical evidence. (APEX) !/
What is the historical evidance for the foundation of rome?
what is the historical evidence for the foundation of rome
When an attorney gives a statement of disapproval about evidence from the opposing side what is that statement called?
He is challenging the "admissability" of the evidence (i.e.- he is saying that it is "nadmissable").
What factors can change a historical interpretation?
Evidence, secondary sources, and forgery. :)
What is the difference between an objective statement and nonobjective statement?
The lack of observable evidence
What is the difference between an objective statement and a nonobjective statement?
The lack of observable evidence
